« Excuse Me... Do You Speak English? | Main | Todd's $49,999,950 Mistake »
Monday, April 03, 2006
Mark Driscoll: Defining "Emergent" in a Way We Can All Understand
Are you like me? Have you had a hard time really wrapping your mind around the whole 'emergent' church definition? I mean, it's a hard thing to define when the leaders of the movementment can't define it themselves (and find themselves at odds, even with other leaders of the movement). There have been parts of the 'emergent' movement that interest me greatly; and other parts that make me want to distance myself from anything remotely called 'emergent'.
Enter Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Mark recently wrote a piece in the Criswell Theological Review that really helped me get a handle on what 'emergent' ('emerging') churches are all about; and the different types of churches there are that might fit under this umbrella. For the first time, I think I truly understand the different areas and viewpoints of this movement. Maybe this will help you the same. Mark writes:
Add Your Comments and Ideas now..."The Emerging church is a broad category that encompasses a wide variety of churches and Christians who are seeking to be effective missionaries wherever they live. This includes Europeans and Australians who are having the same conversation as their American counterparts. The Emerging church includes three distinct types of Christians. In a conversation with Dr. Ed Stetzer, a noted missiologist, he classified them as the Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists.
Relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures. Their goal is to be more relevant; thus, appealing to postmodernminded people. Relevants commonly begin alternative worship services within evangelical churches to keep generally younger Christians from leaving their churches. They also plant new churches to reach emerging people. Relevant leaders look to people such as Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, and Rob Bell as like-minded leaders.
The common critique of Relevants is that they are doing little more than conducting “cool church” for hip young Christians and are not seeing significant conversion growth. Within the Relevants there is also a growing group of outreach-minded Reformed Relevants, which look to men like John Piper, Tim Keller, and D. A. Carson for theological direction.
Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). They bolster their critique by noting that our nation is becoming less Christian and that those who profess faith are not living lives markedly different than non-Christians; thereby, proving that current church forms have failed to create life transformation. Subsequently, they propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches. Reconstructionists, who are more influenced by mainline Christian traditions, will also use terms like “new monastic communities” and “abbess.” Reconstructionist leaders look to such people as Neil Cole and Australians Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch.
The common critique of Reconstructionists is that they are collecting disgruntled Christians who are overreacting to the megachurch trend but are not seeing significant conversion growth.
Revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world. Reconstructionists look to such leaders as Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt as well as other Emerging Christians.
The common critique of Revisionists is that they are recycling the doctrinal debates of a previous generation and also not seeing significant conversion growth. What ties each of these types of Emerging Christians together is a missiological conversation about what a faithful church should believe and do to reach Western culture. However, beyond that there is little unity because there is widespread disagreement on what counts as faithful doctrine and practice."
You can read the full article here. Also, HT to Justin at "Between Two Worlds" for the link.
FOR DISCUSSION: What do you think? Which camp would you consider yourself a part of (or none?). Does Mark's definition help you understand what's been happening in the 'emergent' church over the past few years? Feel free to ask your questions or add your comments now!
Have a great week!
Todd
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
April 3, 2006 in Leadership Issues | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d8345cab1569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mark Driscoll: Defining "Emergent" in a Way We Can All Understand:
» defining emergence from emerging mosaic
This morning I opened up my email inbox and there was this article about Driscoll defining emergent /emerging churchesis a way we can all understand Monday Morning Insight Weblog:It has link to a PDF of an article by Mark in the... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 3, 2006 12:11:51 PM
» Monday Morning Insight Weblog: Mark Driscoll: Defining "Emergent" in a Way We Can All Understand from Hey, Ya Know What?
Monday Morning Insight has a post today called: Link: Defining Emergent in a Way We Can All Understand. Mark Driscoll attempts to break the movement into 3 parts. He does a decent job of it. It was interesting reading a [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 3, 2006 1:04:42 PM
Comments
Good stuff. Thought I'd add that the categories Mark uses are from Ed Stetzer (I think he credits him in the article).
Here's an article Ed wrote on it...
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22406
and a short post I did about it in February...
http://jonsampson.blogspot.com/2006/02/emergent-ideas.html
I hope those work!
Love your blog. Thanks for the insight and great stories.
Posted by: Jonathan | Apr 3, 2006 7:48:32 AM
Hi!
Where does the missional church movement fit in these 3 models?
Thanks
Mark
Posted by: Mark McSweeney | Apr 3, 2006 8:34:21 AM
i read the entire article. i was disturbed by mark's fear and blanket critique of all three movements. yes there are those who want to overturn the tables of conventional evangelicalism without ever looking closely at what exactly IS on the table. however there are those who are asking the questions because what God has put inside us and the world around us are demanding answers and not just memorized doctrine. isn't the Holy Spirit powerful enough to direct these discussions into "right" doctrine?
Posted by: len fisher | Apr 3, 2006 9:24:55 AM
I guess the thing that disurbs me most is that all three categories are criticized for not seeing any signifigant conversion growth. Either each group is blinded to what the other groups are doing or the criticism is coming from the established religious culture or it is true.
If it is true we will need torealize that what we are doing is no beer (and no worse) than the models of church that we see as modern in origin.
It would be a shame to "emerge" from a religious culture that is seen as ineffective and dying only to be like that culture in everything except terminology...
Posted by: Greg Scott | Apr 3, 2006 9:33:50 AM
How about this one for consideration, 1 Cor. 14:33 which says: For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
If a movement has confusion within the leadership of the movement, or in this case "conversation" then one should really consider the origin of the movement itself.
In Christ,
Bill in KC
Posted by: Bill | Apr 3, 2006 9:39:40 AM
More than just the categories should be attributed to Stetzer...I think most of the definition for each category belongs to Stetzer as well.
Posted by: Van S | Apr 3, 2006 9:49:33 AM
Stetzers article can be found here: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22406
My major beef with Driscoll/Stetzer's categories are with #3...they seem to assume that evangelicalism is much narrower than has been traditionally defined, and it seems that they throw many emergent folk into the category of "liberal" much too easily.
In the article, Stetzer writes:
"Revisionists are questioning (and in some cases denying) issues like the nature of the substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and the nature of the Gospel itself. This is not new -- some mainline theologians quietly abandoned these doctrines a generation ago. The revisionist emerging church leaders should be treated, appreciated and read as we read mainline theologians -- they often have good descriptions, but their prescriptions fail to take into account the full teaching of the Word of God."
There is SO much I could go into here. He mentions a handful of doctrines that could each warrant a doctoral thesis. Let me just say that the nature of the atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and even the Gospel itself have never been nailed down effectively by all those who would call themselves "evangelical." Stetzer (and Driscoll) seem to have a narrower definition of "evangelical"--maybe he should say "reformed conservative evangelical."
The penal substitutionary view of the atonement has been over-emphasized, due in part to the strong emphasis on forensics within early Reformation systematic theology. What Jesus accomplished on the Cross is multifaceted and has had lots of interpretations over the past 2000 years--even with some very conservative, biblically-driven, thinkers. And to address his other doctrinal concerns: I believe there is a hell, but I don't think Jesus' teachings on hell (nor those of John in Revelation) are so clear and free from symbolism to develop an iron-clad doctrine of hell. And I never knew being a complementarian was a pre-requisite for being an evangelical. I understand why Stezer puts revisionists in with non-evangelical mainline thinkers. And I believe that Stetzer's tone is very irenic and his statements are gracious. But they are also incredibly bound by presuppositions. He never explains what he means when he says "the Gospel" but he does believe that many revisionists are challenging or rejecting it. I assume what he means is the Gospel which hinges upon: Christ's substitutionary atonement, the Gospel of foreign imputed righteousness and legal justification before God.
My difficulty is that I have serious biblical and theological problems with how the traditional way that this version of the Gospel is articulated. How is it that I can disagree with these seemingly rock-solid biblical doctrines while I take the Bible very seriously? I don't mentally disregard those passages which I find unhelpful in order to construct my own version of the Gospel--though I must do that, or apparently I'd agree with him. Or maybe it is that I am confused or misled. But I think the truth is that Stetzer and I are entering into exegesis with a different set of assumptions.
Folks like Driscoll and Stetzer represent more of the "first" category of folks--folks that really believe that the theological inheritance of conservative Reformed evangelicalism is sufficient and "untouchable." Ecclesiology may be open to re-packaging. Unfortunately, I don't think this goes far enough. I think some bad thinking has entered into our theology. And while I don't recommend we tap into liberalism for solutions to our theological problems, I do think we need to be faithful to the spirit of the reformation and continually reform as our theological categories and missional practices fall short.
According to the thinking of folks like Stetzer and Driscoll, I am not an evangelical. I have some friends within emergent who've thrown aside the category of "evangelical" because they believe it is unhelpful. But I still would like to be considered "in."
Mark Van Steenwyk
Founder, Missio Dei
Posted by: Van S | Apr 3, 2006 10:05:43 AM
Saying what you are not isn't enough of a definition of what you are, yet most of the groups outlined above are based on what they are not. Fine, you're not this-or-that, but what are you?
"I'm not Hindu."
"I'm not Jewish."
"I'm not Muslim."
Those statements don't equate to me being a Christian - they simply point out what I'm not. Even more direct is the analogy of denominational affiliation:
"I'm not Lutheran."
"I'm not Presbyterian."
"I'm not Catholic."
OK, thanks for the clarification, but then what exactly are you?
I thoroughly enjoy reading McLaren and Bell. They're both exquisite writers and offer a great deal to consider. In fact, it was McLaren's 'A New Kind of Christian' which really gave me what I consider the first accurate description of a post-modern person. McLaren asks a lot of questions, doesn't offer a lot of answers and makes me think. Bell gives historical context in a way I thoroughly enjoy while providing modern day application that I can employ.
But neither of those men - nor Stetzer - have still defined enough about what the "emergent" movement/style/format/belief is all about. I ask a LOT of questions and I don't settle for much less than a fully discussed answer. But even with this personality trait, I still find myself not understanding enough of what the emergent crowd (though I probably am one!) is for, but rather what they're not all about.
"We think the modern church has failed." OK, what failed, how did it fail, what corrects it and what are the long term ramifications of those changes?
"We think the church is irrelevant." I'm still agreeing. Now what made it irrelevant and how can it be relevant, Biblically true and relationally real?
"Is there life change and growth in the new church?" Where I get weary is with the 'either/or' crowd:
"We think that in order to change the church, we can't have 'church lite' and therefore must have deeply involved and discipled Christians."
"If a church is growing rapidly, there cannot be authentic discipleship. We'd rather have 10 committed than 100 church-lite attendees."
Why is this mindset either/or? Why not BOTH /AND?
"We want to be highly evangelistic AND we want to have small group discipleship to train better Christian leaders?"
"When our people are mature and 'go deep', they should push away from the table where they are fed, get busy serving others and use their discipleship training to become serious fishermen of the unchurched."
Now THAT's what I want to see - a BOTH/AND kind of church that isn't caught up in the branding of modern/postmodern/emergent but is caught up in evangelism AND discipleship.
Sorry for the long rant - just had to get that off my chest! :)
Posted by: Anthony D. Coppedge | Apr 3, 2006 10:15:38 AM
This is difficult because the course of this conversation could start from so many different places. If I'm at all correct all three "R's" start from somewhat the same place: A reaction. Each claims that something was wrong with current, traditional evangelicalism. What was it?
I believe that evangelicalism got stuck in offering too much to just the "head" of the believer. The main premise being, "if we can just get them to think right, scriptural thoughts then their behavior will follow. With any strategy there is good and bad in this. Good: Teaching scripture (carefully dividing the Word. Wrong: Behaviour=discipleship/maturity. (Especially , where was the "right behavior in critical "social gospel" areas? The "R's" have a growing concern for this...the gospel in Word and Deed!)
Generally this was true for both the discipleship and conversion process.
But the world changed and we (xtians) changed. (Because we are influenced by the world?...) And the heart (emotions and senses) became neglected under teaching the Word by just doing verse by verse autopsies. It lost its persuasiveness or attractiveness.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not a slam in any way on the supernatural power of the Word. I'm saying this as a diagnosis of the problem!
Each of these "R's" is a reaction to that. The problem is that we are too close to the thing that they are reacting against and so all they can do is design and define themselves against what they DON'T want to be. In 10-15 years when good balance (Theology + Proper Practices) catches up we'll be in a much better place to know who is actually "correct."
Be a peace everyone, this is nothing new. Messy, messy to be sure, but the Church as been through this before--a bunch! Each time Christ has guided his Bride through it by the indwelling Spirit. We should welcome good, healthy debate and study hard on these issues. But there should be no room for panic as Christ is way more committed to this process than we could ever be. And he already promised that the Bride would be presented spotless.
Alright Todd I'll answer your question for full exclosure: I'd put myself in the Reformed Relevant's camp. I think the preachers you mentioned: Piper and Keller espcially, are doing much to inspire a new movement of deeply biblical preacher/teachers who can help us understand the world, how scripture touches it, help us mature to engage it and are deeply missional. I'm encouraged!
Mike
Posted by: Mike | Apr 3, 2006 10:24:06 AM
Some Thoughts:
1) The 'church' is not emerging. The Gospel of salvation is the same. If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church then the different movements are all part of the body and none are more important than any other.
2) It is not the church that fails to convert. If the message is lost or the word is not taught there is no chance for that soul to be found.
The apostle Paul taught in 1 and 2 Corinthians that there must be unity in the body. Although there are differences, let those differences be put aside in order that the offer of God's Grace can be made to a soul that has been awakened to the need.
The article is begun with a statement that we should read it and then decide if we belong to one of the movements or maybe not. Why do we need to further differentiate ourselves from one another. What does this separation mean to an umbeliever who does not know where to turn or who to believe.
The choice to take the call to be a pastor/teacher is to take on a harsher judgment. Do not lead any of Christ's little ones astray with division strife.
Try to turn your thoughts to unity in the faith.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 3, 2006 10:34:02 AM
I belong to no camp; at the same time I believe there are valid questions, concerns and answers in each camp. Jesus was culturally relevant, and so must we be to bring his message to this time and place.
I read the entire article and agree that these are the 8 theological questions at issue. I am grateful for the dialogue, as I don't have concrete answers to all these questions, and I am constantly challenged to go deeper in my faith and relationship with Christ, seeking His Truth. I believe the ultimate answer to the conversations lies in a process described in scripture. "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28) and "A new command I give you: Love one another..." (John 13:34)
The breakup of the conversation between members of the Leadership Network Team is tragic, for personal agenda superceeded the committment to God's truth about the question. It became something they only talked about and didn't do. Break through happens when personal agendas dissapear and differences are superceeded by God's Truth.
Then we won't have to worry about what context; we'll be overwhelmed by joy and peace. Pollyanna thoughts? I don't think so. God doesn't think so. I choose to believe and act in the hope that every time I love as Jesus loved, I come one step closer to God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
Grace and Peace,
Pat
Posted by: P. Sherwood | Apr 3, 2006 10:53:13 AM
Well, we can always count on you to find a controversial topic, can't we Todd! ;)
Actually, I understand where Mr. Stetzer is coming from, but his theories leave way too many holes. I can name a dozen different current churches that wouldn't fit into any of those molds.
But it is a nice conversation starter. I think I'll take it to my Bible study and get them riled up!
Posted by: Kim | Apr 3, 2006 10:54:14 AM
My my... the comments are interesting.
Some of you really take up sides and put up defenses in a hurry. :)
This article was not meant to defend or divide, but to inform. You can agree or disagree with the article or the ideas expressed.
But it seems (from this and other comments posted today) that some very well may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.
And go figure... on a Monday! :)
Seriously, this article helped me see some of the differences that I've been reading and hearing about between different 'emergent' camps. I don't like labels either; but just because they are labels doesn't mean that you and I don't need to be aware of the movements that are driving much of Christianity and it's leadership today. That, for everyone, is of utmost importance.
So read; take a deep breath; soak it all in; and consider it a learning experience if you find yourself outraged or upset. :)
It will be ok... I promise.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Apr 3, 2006 11:03:12 AM
LOL!
Posted by: Anthony D. Coppedge | Apr 3, 2006 11:53:19 AM
I've been quiet interested in all this stuff...postmodernism, emerging church...
...it's just all weird. I briefly got on the bandwagon of postermodern worship, drawing, comtemplating, writing, coloring...but's it's just not cutting it for my students. I've been convicted lately by God--> I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. Postmodern is cool, emerging is interesting, but I've got this gut feeling like the church is about to look forward a little late and run smack into a light pole, only to realize, "oh my, how long have we worried about so many different things that don't matter?" Why have we complicated things so much? If the Bible says that the gospel is the power of God, which it does, and if the Bible says that the HOly Spirit convicts people of sin, which it does, then shouldn't we faithfully share the original gospel of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and trust the Holy Spirit to convict the hearts of those who hear it? I'd love to hear some responses to this. Thanks!
Posted by: Billie Dantzler | Apr 3, 2006 12:11:41 PM
Well. This is the way I view it and what I get from the article of what Mark Driscoll is saying.
If I may Todd, I use the saying by Forrest Gump. "Momma always said, life if like a box of chocolates, you never know what kind your going to get."
That is the same way the church should be. It should be and is a variety. The church is a variety and should be emerging.
I would say that I am all three rolled up into one.
Posted by: Clairvoyent 1 | Apr 3, 2006 12:13:24 PM
WOW! This is very interesting. I plan on entering the ministry in the next couple of years, and I am having a difficult time deciding which direction I should go. I have seen these types of churches begin, grow and die in a matter of a few years while others somehow make it work. I feel that getting the unchurched into the Christian enviornment is the most important goal of a minister. Follow that up with LOVE, and DIRECTION all while teaching the Gospel of Christ. If it takes a COOL service to get more of the unchurched into GOD's house...PRAISE THE LORD! As people mature in their christian faith they will be able to make the decision, Are their spiritual needs being fed in their current church or if they should move to a smaller more personal atmosphere. I see plenty of bickering among christians directed at christians instead of using that energy to fight the real enemy. I think we should do whatever it takes to get people into church and let the ministers and lay people use their gifts and talents to plant the seed for GOD's grace and the holy spirit to take over and change lives. People dont't change lives, GOD does!!!!!!
Blessings!!
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Childress | Apr 3, 2006 12:46:27 PM
I think the emergent movement is still embryonic and therefore still largely undefinable. Stetzer's categories may be accurate descriptions, but are probably insufficient as a definition of a movement so broad that it almost defies definition.
I think Mark Van Steenwyk really nailed a big part of the question/issue in his comments when he said that "Stetzer and I are entering into exegesis with a different set of assumptions." The emerging church movement is largely (I think) a reaction to trends in evangelicalism, which is becoming increasingly political and decreasingly missional. Yet those who Stetzer would class as "revisionist" are perhaps going a step beyond ecclesiology (how we "do church") and are rethinking their positions on some of the doctrines that evangelicals hold. This is biblical - "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" - and I believe the Spirit is powerful enough to guide in that process. Will some get it "wrong"? Undoubtedly. But Jesus' promise will nonetheless hold true: HE will build HIS church (in all its various forms) and the gates of hell WILL NOT stand against it.
Posted by: Randy Ehle | Apr 3, 2006 12:53:31 PM
To add to CLAIVOYENT's comments... I have always used the idea that churches are like icecream... there are many different flavors and we all have our favorite.
Posted by: Jeff Childress | Apr 3, 2006 1:08:55 PM
Galatians 3
"28": There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Here are three groups that are classics used throughout history to divide us from God. God says: If you are a Jew lay down our life in Christ for the Gentile and if you are a Gentile lay down your life in Christ for the Jew. If you are free lay down your life in Christ for the slave and if you are a slave lay down your life in Christ for the free man. If you are a man lay down your life in Christ for the woman and if you are a woman lay down you life in Christ for the man.
Jesus said: "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
Posted by: Harry Miller | Apr 3, 2006 1:16:28 PM
I have to agree with Brian; Unity of the body of Christ is what’s most important. And I’d like to think the divisions listed here are less divided than they probably actually are, that these divisions are variations on a theme, all working to reach slightly different groups of people, but all still seeing each other as parts of a whole. Maybe I’m being optimistic.
I’ve never seen the terms before but from the descriptions I’d have to put myself in the Revisionist camp because I do sometimes question some evangelical doctrines, often to the aggravation of our Senior Pastor.
And Randy asks, “Will some get it "wrong"? Undoubtedly.” I’m sure some will get it wrong, and some way, way wrong, but as long as we all keep seeking to “get it right”, and praying for guidance from the Lord, I think we’re on the right track.
Posted by: DanielR | Apr 3, 2006 2:34:32 PM
This article is very true as to what is going on - what is missing is the category I am in and that is retro-religeous folks - I would like to see a return to the basic threads that held the church together. I do not recognize my church anymore - the church is filled with what was in this article plus psychology and is not efficient or fair without the time held traditions that worked. So I watch the TV ministry of Dr. Stanley and I stay home and I know a lot of other people do too. I am tired of the newly saved Christians that have no respect for folks who know it already.
Posted by: Marilyn A. Stacy | Apr 3, 2006 2:36:36 PM
I read Driscoll’s whole article and found the categories helpful, as was the historical review of the “emergent” dialogue, at least in regard to his personal participation in it dating back to the early 90’s when he was a young church planter. It was helpful because I think looking at how the national and international discussion has evolved among evangelicals, who has jumped in and how they came to the table, what issues began the discussion, etc. - - - this vantage point should certainly remove the panic and fear which for some is associated with the “emergent” discussion.
Driscoll notes that the desire to be missional is what joins the different groups, yet their disagreement over doctrine and practice prevents real unity. In fact, toward the end of the full article he states “Without being able to come to resolution on these important matters [theological/doctrinal issues], though, mission will simply cease.” Need that be the case?
It saddens me that what brought these folks to the table initially, a desire to remain missional within the 21st century western culture, gets lost in a doctrinal/theological quagmire. Not that protecting of the essentials of our faith is not important . . . indeed it is. It’s just that it seems to me (as I believe Anthony noted above) we’ve insisted on an either or mentality. Either protect orthodoxy and doctrinal purity OR functional missionally within our culture. Hasn’t this either/or mentality (“confusion” as Bill calls it) plagued the church throughout her history, and when it surfaced always gotten them off the missional course. Was it not such either/or confusion regarding the “Jewishness” of the church, challenged by the conversion of Gentiles, which prompted the Jerusalem council to respond? How about the confusion within the Corinthian church over use of gifts which prompted Paul’s letter? It was even “confusion” in many ways that brought about the councils, their creeds and even the choices related to the canonization of scripture. God was not the author of this confusion, but He surely allowed it and used it for His purposes and the missional advancement of the church. Why wouldn’t He use the emergent discussion similarly?
I am also thinking that we tend to look at the biblical narrative in Acts and the Epistles as if these words represent the only discussion that took place related to the complicated issues swirling around the church in the first century. Our knowledge of human nature tells us otherwise. I’m sure thousands of discussions took place among believers and church leaders before the Jerusalem council responded officially to the Gentile issue. In fact, the discussion created the need for the council. Can you imagine what Todd would be posting each week if we were deciding today what to do about incorporating Gentiles into the church? The water cooler discussions in Corinth were buzzing for years before Paul recognized the need to intercede. I think we’d have some MMI postings of articles from the Corinthian Herald. Can you see the headline “Apostle Paul blasts Corinthian leaders”?
The discussions among us, even the disagreement, is all part of how the Holy Spirit forms and shapes The Church so she will be able to complete her missional task. Let’s not fear discussion. Indeed, God is not the author of confusion, but that does not mean confusion is not part of our fallen condition. God’s ability to bring about clarity is part of His redemptive work, and although His view is not constrained by time and space, ours is!! We are in process. I wish we would enjoy our journey together a little more – and remember our missional purpose here.
Wendi
Posted by: Wendi | Apr 3, 2006 3:07:18 PM
"I am tired of the newly saved Christians that have no respect for folks who know it already." I'm sorry. I tried several time. I just can't comment on that......
Posted by: Steve McGill | Apr 3, 2006 3:14:51 PM
It seems to me that there is an "emerging church movement" that is accurately and adequately described by Stetzer in this post. And yet there is also a host of churches that would not be considered part of the "emerging church movement" that are nonetheless asking similar questions and taking similar steps. In Driscoll's "Church 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0" terms, these might be "Church 1.0" models that are nonetheless seeking to be relevant within a postmodern culture, "glocal" in their missions endeavors...in short, they are combining - or transitioning through - various aspects of the 1.0-2.0-3.0 spectrum.
These churches are, I believe, generally older (50+ years), well-established, evangelical in theology, and "mission-friendly." And yet they face challenges similar to those of us who are in mid-life and beyond: how do we relate to our teens and their friends while remaining true to our convictions about biblical faith and practice? It is a hard thing to change these churches, and not all of them are dying or should be left to die on the vine.
Just as there is a great need for cross-generational mentoring at an individual level, so I believe there is a compelling need for "cross-generational" learning among churches. Because there are many of these older, established churches that really do want to learn and grow (spiritually) in order to continue bearing much fruit for generations to come, I would love to figure out how to take advantage of that openness and begin a dialog between the "modern" church and the "emerging church movement".
Posted by: Randy Ehle | Apr 3, 2006 4:01:11 PM
